As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Thursday, September 22, 2011

9/11 Commission Archives

The National Archives has posted a blog entry on the 9/11 Commission records which they are sorting. Truthers like to pretend there is no evidence for the 9/11 hijackers, but this is based entirely on the fact that they immediately dismiss any evidence which is produced by the government, and since they don't do any of their own investigation, well, who else would have collected evidence?

I remember paging through photocopies of the boarding passes from Flight 93. I turned a page and saw hijacker Ziad Jarrah’s name. It felt like getting punched in the stomach. I imagined the line of travelers waiting to walk down the jetway, having no idea that four of their fellow passengers were going to kill them in a few minutes. We all know that annoying guy in the line talking too loudly or grumbling about the score of last night’s game as it flashes on the terminal television. It was probably just as mundane that morning for the travelers in that waiting area. As I sat in my work space, everything in me wanted to shout to those people to walk away and not board the plane. “Go home to your loved ones and hug them or you’ll never be able to ever again,” my mind screamed.

96 Comments:

The German press says that Jarrah would have been known to German intelligence agencies by 1996.

CNN claims that Jarrah was detained in an airport in January 2000 at the request of US authorities.

There are several instances when Jarrah appears to be two places at one time--living in Brooklyn when he's attending Catholic School in Lebanon, visiting Afghanistan when he's attending flight school in Florida.

He left Miami for Beirut 12/26/2000, then left Tampa for Dusseldorf 12/28/2000.

According to the FBI, on July 25, 2001 he flew from Atlanta to Amsterdam, and also flew from Newark to Dusseldorf.

There is much confusion over Jarrah's flight from Florida to Newark on 9/7/01. The Moussaoui trial stipulation claims that he took Spirit flight 1500, but also claims he took Continental flight 1700, which arrived several hours after he rented a car and a hotel room there.

9/9/01 Jarrah was stopped for speeding, but though he was on a CIA watch list, he was released.

"Uhh, because I have a life and don't feel like digging into every minutiae and perceived anomaly that truthers dig up." James Bennett

Translation: I don't believe in thorough research, or things may get too complicated for me. I think it's possible for someone to be in 2 places simultaneously, as long as it doesn't interfere with my pre-formed opinions about 9/11.

No, it means that in a complicated and widely covered event it is possible, if not expected, that there will be someinconsistent and contradictory accounts. It does not mean that if there are you get to just dismiss what actually happened and create your own facts.

Sorry for the off-topic comment, but I found four news articles you may want to read. The first article is from the Miami Herald, and it's dated 7 September 2011. The authors are Anthony Summers and Dan Christensen of The Broward Bulldog.

Fudge-packer the fatuous dissembles, "...Translation: when I agree with them, they're facts. When I don't, they're 'anomalies'."

Is that anything like when, on numerous occasions, you used the term iron-rich microspheres, and then referred to them as "elemental iron" when it suited your unscientific and inconsistent 100% fact-free malarkey?

So tell us, when did you develop an unnatural attraction to malnourished Asian girls who have no tits and boy butts?

"It does not mean that if there are you get to just dismiss what actually happened and create your own facts." JamesBitch

you mean "facts" like 'We have all the forensic evidence' (-James Bennett); or facts like "It was cutting torches, retard. Umm no wait, it was fly ash, even though I have no source or proof *munch* *munch* you know, I mean..." (-Pat CurLie)

Still trying to cling to the lie that says I have "no source or proof" when, on numerous occasions, I've provided myriad sources and incontrovertible proof for my hypothesis, while you quote mine, change your story and consistently fail to substantiate your argument with direct links and quotes from relevant sources including the RJ Lee Report?

Gosh, what would we do without your "consistent" and "informative" contributions to SLC's dialog?

So tell us, when did you develop an unnatural attraction to malnourished Asian girls who have no tits and boy butts?

Interesting articles, GB. I am not sure what to make of the sudden disappearance of that one Saudi family.

I do note that at least one article repeats the canard that Saudis were allowed to fly home during the time that domestic flights were not allowed.

Note as well that this claim is false: "Graham cited another case in San Diego — also withheld from the 9/11 committee but later discovered by Congressional investigators — in which a Saudi citizen with links to hijackers fled the country shortly before the attacks."

Withheld from the committee? No, Bayoumi was interviewed by Zelikow and Snell:

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2003-10-16-MFR-Omar-Al-Bayoumi.pdf

Tantalizing information, sure, but the obvious errors make me wonder if there aren't other mistakes in the reporting.

I wouldn't doubt there are quite a few errors in the reporting. In fact, I can point out a couple of errors in the reporting, too. But that's beside the point. My concern is that this emerging story will be the next to be utterly butchered by the troofers--for political purposes, of course.

Billmon, my old buddy Rob Breakenridge pointed that out the other day. I don't doubt the science, but at the same time I don't think that anybody's really losing sleep about explosions in the middle of one of the biggest office fires in history.

It does highlight that we will continue to learn more about the events of 9-11 as time goes by. However, we will never learn the things the buffoonish Truthers believe are true.

No James, I do not think the police had access to the CIA watch lists. The police stop is just an indication that these guys were traveling around under the own names buying airline tickets, calling back to the al Qaeda communications hub, and speeding. Hardly the kind of behavior from people you would expect to be trying to remain invisible.

GB, I know the complexity of these things taxes your brain, but the iron-rich spheres and the elemental iron may be two different phenomena.

You still haven't figured out why the claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized?

Pat, the statement was correct: "Graham cited another case in San Diego — also withheld from the 9/11 committee but later discovered by Congressional investigators — in which a Saudi citizen with links to hijackers fled the country shortly before the attacks." Omar Bayoumi was not made available to Bob Graham's committee. That he was made available to Zelikow and Snell means little, given that those two both acted in the 9/11 Commission to cover up the Saudi connections.

MGF--"real scientist"? Really? The clown think the towers were built of 6 cm steel rods!

Pat, the reports were of big explosions that were all coincident with the inception of collapse or during collapse. That was not "in the middle" of the fire. There were also reports of explosions in the basement before the collapse, but unfortunately the most conspicuous witness to this effect has no credibility.

Fudge-packer the fatuous dissembles, "...GB, I know the complexity of these things taxes your brain, but the iron-rich spheres and the elemental iron may be two different phenomena."

Too bad that you can't provide one shred of evidence to support that assertion. As usual, you make up your "facts."

"...You still haven't figured out why the claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized?"

I guess that explains why you had no response and ran away with your tail between your spindly legs when I explained why you're full-of-crap? The World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 425,000 cubic yards of concrete. There are 2400 kg/cubic meter. That means the World Trade Center Towers were constructed with 780,000 metric tons of concrete (ie., 860,000 short tons).

Maybe some day you'll take a break from your hectic masturbation schedule and get a clue, goat fucker?

The goat fucker continues to dissemble, "...GB, I have explained in this forum at least six times that the alleged elemental iron comes from a 40-pound ingot taken from Ground Zero. The microspheres are microspheres."

The ingot you lie about doesn't exist. And perhaps you can explain why every sample of alleged "molten steel" contains pieces of paper? Paper that burns at 451 degrees F. How did the paper manage to survive contact with "molten steel"?

The goat fucker dissembles, "...Your repetitive dataspam about short tons and metric tons has nothing to do with the issue of why the claim is absurd that all 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized."

UtterFail, you lie. The 40 pouind ingot of formerly molten iron can be seen in slide 146 here:http://www.american-buddha.com/911.blueprintfortruthae.htm

Perhaps if you were a more competent googler you wouldn't humiliate yourself so often.

You're wrong because you can't explain why the claim is absurd that 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized.

You don't know anything about the work I do. And of course I want to keep it that way because Willie Rodriguez has a habit of trying to interfere with my employers.

I have proposed many possibilities for debating Willie in a responsible forum, including at the San Francisco 9/11 googlegroup or on Carol Brouillet's radio show, or at visibility 911 or 911blogger. If Willie can't make that happen, I guess he doesn't have the guts to debate me in a responsible forum. I refuse to debate in an irresponsible forum that would permit Willie to engage in his favorite arguments to the detriment of innocent third parties.

I know the prospect of nosing around in my dirty underwear is one of your favorite fantasies. I bet you can buy dirty used underwear online if you want. Ask a ten year old to help you google it.

The goat fucker dissembles, "...you lie. The 40 pouind [SIC] ingot of formerly molten iron can be seen in slide 146 here:http://www.american-buddha.com/911.blueprintfortruthae.htm...Perhaps if you were a more competent googler you wouldn't humiliate yourself so often."

Nice job, spelling bee champ.

Your link doesn't work. Is this an example of the work of a competent "googler"?

And how many times must I tell you, cretin? Links to 9/11 "truther" websites aren't "evidence," they're a circle jerk.

And let me guess, you still can't produce an assay to substantiate your "molten steel" propaganda?

FAIL.

The goat fucker dissembles, "...You're wrong because you can't explain why the claim is absurd that 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized."

No, you're lying because you refuse to explain why I'm wrong. And you don't dare step out on that limb because you know I'll rip your unscientific, inconsistent and illogical propaganda to shreds.

FAIL.

The goat fucker squeals, "...You don't know anything about the work I do."

How could I? After all, you don't work in any capacity. It's no secret that you're an unemployed janitor and college dropout who wears women's underwear.

So do the Palo Alto and Stanford Campus police still classify you as a 5150?

The goat fucker squeals, "...And of course I want to keep it that way because Willie Rodriguez has a habit of trying to interfere with my employers."

Sure he does, goat fucker. Of course, you can't substantiate one word of that assertion.

The goat fucker dissembles, "...I have proposed many possibilities for debating Willie in a responsible forum, including at the San Francisco 9/11 googlegroup or on Carol Brouillet's radio show...[blah][blah][blah]."

Still clinging to that bald-faced lie, goat fucker?

You know as well as I do that Carol Brouillet won't allow you within a mile of her because you're a home wrecker who tried to destroy her marriage.

Shall I quote her verbatim and prove, once again, that you're a liar who tried to wreck her marriage?

The goat fucker squeals, "...I know the prospect of nosing around in my dirty underwear is one of your favorite fantasies."

GB is there some reason you would rather lie about links and Carol Brouillet and about me than discuss these on-topic issues? Like you're trying to disrupt the discussion, perhaps?

Lots of people copy my verbiage. It's good verbiage. Why would I lie about punxsutawneybarney? Lying is your job.

Pat, the police stop is just an indication that these guys were traveling around under the own names buying airline tickets, calling back to the al Qaeda communications hub, and speeding. Hardly the kind of behavior from people you would expect to be trying to remain invisible.

Pat, the statement was correct: "Graham cited another case in San Diego — also withheld from the 9/11 committee but later discovered by Congressional investigators — in which a Saudi citizen with links to hijackers fled the country shortly before the attacks." Omar Bayoumi was not made available to Bob Graham's committee. That he was made available to Zelikow and Snell means little, given that those two both acted in the 9/11 Commission to cover up the Saudi connections.

MGF--"real scientist"? Really? The clown think the towers were built of 6 cm steel rods!

Pat, the reports were of big explosions that were all coincident with the inception of collapse or during collapse. That was not "in the middle" of the fire. There were also reports of explosions in the basement before the collapse, but unfortunately the most conspicuous witness to this effect has no credibility.

OT, but I just finished watching the Naudet brothers documentary, which I had never seen before. Damn, that's a hard movie to watch. I mean, the footage is spectacular, but things like the crashing sound each time a jumper hit the plaza is going to haunt me.

I guess I just need some comic relief, and what better way than to taunt Brian for being an unemployed liar who wears women's underwear? It will also be interesting to contrast the courage from that film with that of a man who ran away squealing and crying from an opportunity to debate Willie Rodriguez.

"OT, but I just finished watching the Naudet brothers documentary, which I had never seen before. Damn, that's a hard movie to watch. I mean, the footage is spectacular, but things like the crashing sound each time a jumper hit the plaza is going to haunt me."

I own this on DVD. It is a masterpiece.

The damage visible in the lobby of the North Tower testifies to the extent of the damage that must have occurred in the upper floors. It illustrates the confusion too.

Worth watching.

I bought the Discovery Channel's "101 Minutes" which is a 9/11 3-pack. It includes footage of inside WTC7's lobby and mezzanine.

Willie may be a fantasy but he's no dream. Did you catch that Reuters said he lives with a dog named Elvis, and his story is maybe 5% true and that maybe Willie might be crazy enough to believe his own bullshit?

The problem is that Willie claims he has a wife and child, but Reuters says he lives with a dog named Elvis.

Willie's alleged craziness is not a matter of a psychiatric diagnosis. It's probably Reuters's way of dodging German libel laws by avoiding calling him a liar. "OK, his story might be 95% untrue but don't think we're calling him a liar, because he might believe it."

Willie's alleged craziness is not a matter of a psychiatric diagnosis. It's probably Reuters's way of dodging German libel laws by avoiding calling him a liar. "OK, his story might be 95% untrue but don't think we're calling him a liar, because he might believe it."

What about the Norwegian hackers he hired to crash your computer? Are they subject to German libel law? What about Tanzanian libel law?

So I finally saw a "remember building 7" sign at the Occupy Wall Street protests. Congratulations, truthers, it took over a week for one of you to show up at this protest. I'm just shocked your "movement" hasn't gained more traction!

Where's the 15 single-handedly rescued and the hundreds saved? Where's "letting people out"?Where's the "last man out"? Where's the 22 stories collapsing from 65 to 43? Where's David Lim, who refuses to corroborate his story? Where's the license to steal Pablo Ortiz's story as if it were his own?

UtterFail, once again you prove my point. Der Spiegel points out the obvious: One can not prove a negative. One can not prove that Willie did not save hundreds. One can only point out that he can not provide a single person who will say that his Key of Hope saved him or her. One can only point out that death statistics show that survival rates on Willie's floors were no higher than on any other floor.

It's too bad that you settled for vocational education instead of developing your mind. But you makes your choices and you pays your price.

Yeah, well you have to repeat things for Bill. He's kind of a slow learner.

I mean, he still hasn't figured out why the NRDC's claim is absurd that 424,000 tons of WTC concrete was pulverized, though anyone who knows the first thing about the construction of the WTC would know.

You haven't proven anything, goat fucker. And if you had an education beyond the high school-level, you'd know that all you've managed to do is cherry pick another article--an article that doesn't rise to the level of an opinion piece--and misrepresent the content found therein.

"...I literally had to kick him out. This guy [Rodriguez] wanted to stay with me all the time...This is the true hero of 9/11." -- Officer Lim

And don't give me that crap about Officer Lim failing to mention Willie to the 9/11 Commission. He also failed to mention the team that assisted him throughout what Lim described in his 9/11 Commission testimony as a "rescue operation."

Too bad you're a college dropout, sex predator and a liar who wears women's underwear.

Officer Lim doesn't have to talk to Der Spiegel. He gave his testimony in the video I present above.

Furthermore, your claim that I'm resorting to negative proof is proven false by the testimony of Officer Lim, which I present above.

Now the burden of proof shifts to YOU. Now you must refute the evidence presented above. As usual, you'll resort to reductio ad absurdum, which is your stock-and-trade, by taking negative proof as legitimate means to "prove" your 100% fact-free argument.

Its illogical to persist in arguing from the position of "negative proof" after the presentation of evidence. But, then again, logic is always lost on a compulsive liar who wears women's underwear.

UtterFool, Mr. Lim's refusal to comment is significant evidence. Note he doesn't say that he stands on his earlier testimony. He refuses to comment. This behavior casts considerable doubt on the value of his testimony, doubt to which you are wilfully blind.

A reasonable person would suspect that Mr. Lim has re-evaluated his praise for Mr. Rodriguez in light of further information and in light of Rodriguez's subsequent behavior.

It's not speculation. He refused to comment. He did not reaffirm his earlier testimony. He refused to comment. That is significant. That is not normal behavior.

What about the fact that not one of the hundreds of people Willie claims to have saved with his magic Key of Hope will come forward to say so? What about the fact that death statistics show that survival rates were no higher on his 39 floors than on any other floor in the building? What about the fact that he stole the story of Pablo Ortiz, a true hero who died on 9/11? What about the fact that he claimed that he "single-handedly rescued fifteen (15) persons" when all he did was show them to street--and they already knew their way to the street?

Truthers believe him because they are stuck in a truther echo chamber and the censorship of Willie's critics is vicious and nearly total. What's your excuse? Only stupidity can explain how you fall for such an obvious con.

A formal retraction on the part of Officer Lim is evidence. FACT: Officer Lim has never retracted his statement.

I proved that Officer Lim called Willie Rodriguez a "hero."

"...I literally had to kick him out. This guy [Rodriguez] wanted to stay with me all the time...This is the true hero of 9/11." -- Officer Lim

Thus, all you have is speculation--and speculation is NOT evidence.

Furthermore your claim that "not one of the hundreds of people Willie claims to have saved with his magic Key of Hope will come forward" is proven FALSE by the article you deliberately misrepresent.

Der Spiegel wrote, "...People to whom Rodriguez has already helped at the staircase rise, have publicly thanked him, including the two from the lift, but also others."

As anyone can see, you're deliberately misrepresenting the article you present as evidence. Thus, once again, you're a proven liar.

You, moreover, have never proven that Willy "stole" anyone's story. Again, you're misrepresenting speculation on your part as "evidence."

Again, you couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary logic.

FACT: In light of Officer Lim's testimony, which I presented above, the BURDEN OF PROOF HAS SHIFTED TO YOUR SHOULDERS and your shoulders alone. And so far, all you've given us is more speculation which you deliberately misrepresent as "evidence."

Now, either substantiate your argument with FACTS, or STFU.

FACT: Failure on your part to produce Officer Lim's retraction proves that your argument is not based on "facts" but 100% fact-free speculation.

That Mr. Lim refused to comment is not speculation. It is a fact. It places a cloud on his prior testimony.

It remains a fact that not one person of the hundreds that Willie allegedly saved by "opening doors and letting people out" will come forward and say so. Not one. Nor will any of the fifteen persons that Willie claims that he single-handedly rescued come forward and say so.

The Der Spiegel article does not identify any of the people who has publicly thanked him, and so there is every reason to think their information on this comes from Willie himself. A Spanish newspaper made the same mistake, reporting as fact a claim that came from no one but Willie to the effect that he had raised $122 million.

Your credulity in the face of an obvious con artist shows you for a fool.

Again, Der Spiegel contradicts your claim that "[i]t remains a fact that not one person of the hundreds that Willie allegedly saved by 'opening doors and letting people out' will come forward...[blah][blah][blah]."

You pull your "facts" out of your ass.

Again, you insane liar:

Der Spiegel wrote, "...People to whom Rodriguez has already helped at the staircase rise, have publicly thanked him, including the two from the lift, but also others."

Do you ever stop lying, goat fucker the senile?

If you could read, you'd understand that the Der Spiegel article doesn't set out to prove anything.

The proof comes directly from Officer Lim who said, "...I literally had to kick him out. This guy [Rodriguez] wanted to stay with me all the time...This is the true hero of 9/11." -- Officer Lim

You have never proven that Willie Rodriguez is a "con artist."

If you're looking for a con artist, have good, long look in the mirror--you insane liar.

"we don’t have ABSOLUTE PROOF", "The proposition that George W. Bush is actually a 500-year-old reptile from outer space hasn’t been proven wrong", "Associating the movement with science fiction fantasies hurts credibility.", "Some people who claim to be truthers are liars.", "There are some people in the movement who present repulsive, unbelievable, and kooky theories to the public. They make us look like nuts."

All anyone has to do is search for Brian's comments and use them against him.

You can not name one person of the hundreds that Willie claims to have saved with his magic Key of Hope who has come forward to say so.

Willie Rodriguez is a con artist. He lies blatantly to induce people to give him money. He lied about the $122 million, he lied about the 22-story collapse, he lied about the 15 rescues, and he lied about the hundreds saved. He probably lied about Ed Beyea too.

I can stand people helping others. You won't see me putting down Pablo Ortiz or Frank DeMartini. I will put down swindling scamsters like William Rodriguez who steal their glory from the dead.

UtterFail, you seem to be willfully blind to the fact that I can't prove a negative.

It's not for me to substantiate. It's for Willie to substantiate. He's had ten years now to get his ducks in a row and substantiate his claims. He hasn't, he doesn't, and he won't--because he can't. His story is a lie.

I'm sorry you're not smart enough to figure this out, but that's not my fault.

"...Furthermore, your claim that I'm resorting to negative proof is proven false by the testimony of Officer Lim, which I present above...Now the burden of proof shifts to YOU. Now you must refute the evidence presented above. As usual, you'll resort to reductio ad absurdum, which is your stock-and-trade, by taking negative proof as legitimate means to "prove" your 100% fact-free argument...Its illogical to persist in arguing from the position of "negative proof" after the presentation of evidence. But, then again, logic is always lost on a compulsive liar who wears women's underwear."

I offered the evidence that proves Willie Rodriguez is not lying. Officer Lim's testimony to be specific.

I'm not asking you to prove a negative--you idiot. YOU ASKED ME TO PROVE A NEGATIVE--you lying sack-of-shit.

I'm asking you to PROVE that Officer Lim retracted his statement.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: You couldn't pass a formal examination in elementary logic.

Let the record show that the goat fucker can't prove Officer Lim retracted his statement. Nor can he prove one iota of the lies he tells about Willie Rodriguez. All the goat fucker can offer is his 100% fact-free opinion. And the opinion of a proven compulsive liar isn't "evidence."